Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The right enshrined under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India are fundamental rights and can be taken away or restricted only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

Thus, what is to be considered is whether the Rules framed by the CBSE would fall within the scope of Article 19(2). Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India is reproduced hereinunder:-

"[(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the [sovereignty and integrity of India,] the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.]"

The Supreme Court was again confronted with the circulars issued by the Kerala Education Authorities providing a code of conduct for teachers and pupils and it was considered as to whether the said code qualifies the test as laid down under Article 19(2) and can have the effect of restricting the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). The Supreme Court in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others; (1986) 3 SCC 615 held as under:-

"16. We have referred to Article 19(1)(a) which guarantees to all citizens freedom of speech and expression and to Article 19(2) which provides that nothing in Article 19(1)(a) shall prevent a State from making any law, insofar as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(a) in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The law is now well settled that any law which be made under clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 to regulate the exercise of the right to the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) must be "a law" having statutory force and not a mere executive or departmental instruction. In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1963 SC 1295, 1299 : (1964) 1 SCR 332] the question arose whether a police regulation which was a mere departmental instruction, having no statutory basis could be said to be a law for the purpose of Article 19(2) to (6). The Constitution Bench answered the question in the negative and said :

17. The two circulars on which the department has placed reliance in the present case have no statutory basis and are mere departmental instructions. They cannot, therefore, form the foundation of any action aimed at denying a citizen's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). Further it is not possible to hold that the two circulars were issued "in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relation with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence" and if not so issued, they cannot again be invoked to deny a citizen's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). In Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar [AIR 1962 SC 1166 : 1962 Supp 3 SCR 369, 383-4] a Constitution Bench of the Court had to consider the validity of Rule 4-A of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules which prohibited any form of demonstration even if such demonstration was innocent and incapable of causing a breach of public tranquillity. The Court said:

31. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in State of M.P. v. Thakur Bharat Singh [AIR 1967 SC 1170] and Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala [(1986) 3 SCC 615] ."

In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court, the Rules as framed by the CBSE do not have any statutory flavour and cannot be considered to be the ''law' as required for placing a reasonable restrictions on the rights enshrined under Article 19(1)(a), in terms of Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

In any event, even for restricting the scope of Article 19 (1) (a) by means of any law, it is clear that the operation of such law by the State imposing reasonable restrictions should be in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with the Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement of an offence.